Take back the foreshore

[60-YEARS-in-Ktown]

If it's one of the few with foreshore rights, then I am OK with it..
If not, yeah it bothers me..

[John101]

An example - I buy a car and park it on a city lot without permission, that does not entitle the city to destroy or damage my car.

Apples and oranges. Not even remotely the same thing. If you said "if I were to own a property adjacent to a city parking lot and build a garage across the entrance that was connected to my property", now you're talking apples to apples or oranges to oranges. And now I think you might be able to see the folly of your ways.

[John101]

I would also like to take the shores back too, however the way that I look at it is if we don't build more public docks and boat launches there will be no place for the boats to park.
Plus The chances are that the rich will still build the illegal docks, making them harder and more expensive to dismantle.

So I have 2 simple questions.
1. Are you, as taxpayers willing to fork over the money for these docks?
2. Is there another simple, affordable alternative for them?

Boat launch.

[Fancy]

Apples and oranges. Not even remotely the same thing. If you said "if I were to own a property adjacent to a city parking lot and build a garage across the entrance that was connected to my property", now you're talking apples to apples or oranges to oranges. And now I think you might be able to see the folly of your ways.

Disagree - those docks were bought and paid for by the owners and belongs to them. You don't destroy someone else's property. And I don't get the "folly of your ways".

[Bpeep]

Is Gillespies 10 million dollar parking lot on Hobson the house that Tom Poole lived in before he died?

[Anonymous123]

Is Gillespies 10 million dollar parking lot on Hobson the house that Tom Poole lived in before he died?

It looks like it.

[dle]

https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-s ... htm#215324

Legal or not, the City of Kelowna realizes hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax revenue from property owners who construct docks and wharfs along Okanagan Lake

Riddle me this......if those docks are illegal, how is it the City can not only unilaterally allow ILLEGAL docks to remain on our beaches BUT charge taxes on them? Are they not profiting from those proceeds by plunking the taxes they reap into City coffers to pay for whatever - I am assuming including staff wages, benefits, pensions and whatever else? Where's my cut? They'll say it's in road infrastructure & maintenance (hahahahaha) etc and all other such things. I'd like my cut up front please!
Is there not a law against proceeds of crime? Are they not perpetuating a crime of some sort by continually allowing SOME citizens to blatantly break the law to the ongoing detriment of other citizens if that foreshore is not owned by the dock owners? Some benefit in a monetary way with HUGE property assessments - ie that Rock House they are talking about - while some others can't even access that property for their enjoyment? How does that work - if that property does not own its foreshore rights then the dock has to go and clear path across the beach allowed to everyone!
What is with this City? It doesn't seem to matter what the laws are regarding anything! The City appears to bend them quite often - you know, like when somebody builds something without a building permit (I'm referring to a rooftop restaurant down in the artsy-fartsy area but I guess we can lump these docks in here too), but if they can get it done before they get caught then oh well - what's done is done and no one is forced to remove the illegal build. Or when the majority of the population wants to stand behind the gift of a kind citizen who wants to preserve our parkland and waterfront but the City decides to build a behemoth of a tourist center on it regardless of its covenant and regardless of the desires of the majority of the citizenry?

[Fancy]

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=74217&p=2287853#p2287853

[voice of reason]

must be nice to be rich.try building a deck on your house with out a permit and see how fast the city gets up your *bleep*

[LANDM]

https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-215324-1-.htm#215324

Legal or not, the City of Kelowna realizes hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax revenue from property owners who construct docks and wharfs along Okanagan Lake

Riddle me this......if those docks are illegal, how is it the City can not only unilaterally allow ILLEGAL docks to remain on our beaches BUT charge taxes on them? Are they not profiting from those proceeds by plunking the taxes they reap into City coffers to pay for whatever - I am assuming including staff wages, benefits, pensions and whatever else? Where's my cut? They'll say it's in road infrastructure & maintenance (hahahahaha) etc and all other such things. I'd like my cut up front please!
Is there not a law against proceeds of crime? Are they not perpetuating a crime of some sort by continually allowing SOME citizens to blatantly break the law to the ongoing detriment of other citizens if that foreshore is not owned by the dock owners? Some benefit in a monetary way with HUGE property assessments - ie that Rock House they are talking about - while some others can't even access that property for their enjoyment? How does that work - if that property does not own its foreshore rights then the dock has to go and clear path across the beach allowed to everyone!
What is with this City? It doesn't seem to matter what the laws are regarding anything! The City appears to bend them quite often - you know, like when somebody builds something without a building permit (I'm referring to a rooftop restaurant down in the artsy-fartsy area but I guess we can lump these docks in here too), but if they can get it done before they get caught then oh well - what's done is done and no one is forced to remove the illegal build. Or when the majority of the population wants to stand behind the gift of a kind citizen who wants to preserve our parkland and waterfront but the City decides to build a behemoth of a tourist center on it regardless of its covenant and regardless of the desires of the majority of the citizenry?

Well that’s a dramatic post.

While all has pretty well been said in the other thread, perhaps look up the differences between illegal and nonconforming. Or you can run around town demanding that "illegal" homes be torn down because they have nonconforming issues. And Kelowna collects taxes on those too.

Most (not all, but the vast majority...almost all) docks were built and licensed properly. The province then changed the rules and informed owners that their docks did not conform to the new rules. They were given "specific permission" to keep those docks but, in general, could not change anything without making them conform.
This is neither breaking a law nor is it a "crime of some sort". It is not a crime of any sort and there are no "proceeds of crime".
Perhaps look up the Criminal Code of Canada and try and find mention of nonconforming docks that are legally allowed to exist and report back on this horrible crime.

Or we can just repeat the entire discussion ad nauseum.

[dle]

LandM said:

Well that’s a dramatic post.

While all has pretty well been said in the other thread, perhaps look up the differences between illegal and nonconforming. Or you can run around town demanding that "illegal" homes be torn down because they have nonconforming issues. And Kelowna collects taxes on those too.

Most (not all, but the vast majority...almost all) docks were built and licensed properly. The province then changed the rules and informed owners that their docks did not conform to the new rules. They were given "specific permission" to keep those docks but, in general, could not change anything without making them conform.
This is neither breaking a law nor is it a "crime of some sort". It is not a crime of any sort and there are no "proceeds of crime".
Perhaps look up the Criminal Code of Canada and try and find mention of nonconforming docks that are legally allowed to exist and report back on this horrible crime.

Or we can just repeat the entire discussion ad nauseum.

Sorry you don't like this post being on this thread - I didn't put it here but it wound up here - I posted it under another heading but it must not have been where the moderator wanted it to be so it was moved here.

Not sure I can see any "drama" in my post but to each their own. Annoyance? Yep. You see, the reason I quoted the beginning of the article before I made my post was that the article begins with the words "Legal or not...."which leads me to believe there are others, besides me, who believe there may be reasons to query whether they are in fact "illegal" not just "non-conforming".

In any event, I guess we are all entitled to our opinions and what we might think of a certain subject - which is why we are discussing them in the forums so thanks for your input. I do however question whether the vast majority were built with permits because when the flooding was in full roar I read that there were many who were afraid their docks would not be allowed to be rebuilt because of being, as you say "non-conforming" and were hoping to get "grand-fathered" as long as the property stayed in their family.

I guess you will just have to bear with all us "drama" queens or read other thread topics if this one is bothering you "ad naseum"

[Fancy]

Probably should be merged with this one:
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=72006&hilit=non%3Dconforming&start=810
There's been a lot of discussion about illegal and non-conforming. I'm not sure why you would mention proceeds of crime as it is not criminal to have a dock on the beach. Perhaps why "dramatic post" was mentioned. It seems to be a complicated issue for all concerned and it remains to be seen how it plays out. More than one government level is involved.

[dle]

Probably should be merged with this one:
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=72006&hilit=non%3Dconforming&start=810
There's been a lot of discussion about illegal and non-conforming. I'm not sure why you would mention proceeds of crime as it is not criminal to have a dock on the beach. Perhaps why "dramatic post" was mentioned. It seems to be a complicated issue for all concerned and it remains to be seen how it plays out. More than one government level is involved.

I hear you - my post was simplistic in that to me if something is not legal, then it would appear to be illegal. If something is illegal and you make money off it then would that gain not also be illegal?

So long story short it would be nice if someone (not just opining, but actually in a position to be able to speak accurately) could tell us if the "non-conforming" docks are illegal or not. I don't think I'm the only one who would like to know.....

[Fancy]

This has probably been posted before:
https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2017FLNR0132-001267

General Permission dock owners can have their dock authorized under a “general permission” if:

The dock owner if the owner or lessee of the property fronting the foreshore;
The dock being used for residential use only;
The dock not being located in an area of special interest, designated “application-only area” or reserve;
There are no other authorizations for the section of Crown land proposed for the dock; and
The dock is built to a specified standard and within size restrictions.

[dle]

This has probably been posted before:
https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2017FLNR0132-001267

General Permission dock owners can have their dock authorized under a “general permission” if:

The dock owner if the owner or lessee of the property fronting the foreshore;
The dock being used for residential use only;
The dock not being located in an area of special interest, designated “application-only area” or reserve;
There are no other authorizations for the section of Crown land proposed for the dock; and
The dock is built to a specified standard and within size restrictions.

So I guess the issue with a lot of the dock owners must have been whether they had that "general permission" or not. If not then it stands to reason that it needs to (a) not be rebuilt if it was damaged, or (b) removed even if it wasn't damaged.

It all goes back full circle how some people are allowed to "non-conform" and others are not....should it not be across the board? IMHO being "rich" should not grant you special circumstances to circumvent the "rules" - not in Hollywood, not in politics, nor in Kelowna!